The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why, because one is dealing with two lives, not just the one life.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

That's a bit condescending, you have no idea what I'm willing to consider or what I've considered in the past, you have no idea what resources I've consulted in arriving at my decision. I'm delighted for you that you're so interested in the topic and I like to see someone who's fully engaged in politics in such a way, political apathy is dangerous in a democratic society, but as i've said before I'm not interested in spending my day watching video links you post.

Weren't you being condescending to me when you suggested that I had only just started considering the issue?

All I said was that I had begun to put a bit more effort into hearing the arguments for and against, when late last year it became apparent that a referendum would be held this year. I found that there were numerous lengthy and detailed debates, arguing the case for and against.

I posted the video links because I thought they'd be relevant, in a thread were the arguments for and against Article 40.3.3 of the 8th amendment is being discussed.

I wasn't expecting you to spend the whole day watching the videos. I just thought they'd be of interest.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0205/938551-church-of-ireland-abortion/

Here is an item on the RTE website by Joe Little about Archbishop Richard Clarke and Michael Jackson, of the Church of Ireland, suggest that the Article 40.3.3 could be modified to include cases of pregnancy that pose a risk to the mother.

""In a statement, the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, Richard Clarke and Michael Jackson, said Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution should be modified to give the Oireachtas legislative responsibility for addressing termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn, and the rights of the pregnant woman. They say this should be done within clearly defined boundaries and parameters"

"Their joint statement opens by recalling that the Church of Ireland's tradition rejects unrestricted access to abortion while, at the same time "being concerned to ensure provision (of abortion) for hopefully rare circumstances and in a secure medical setting". They state that individuals will inevitably differ over where to draw the line between these two propositions. "Instances where the life of the woman is at serious risk have long been regarded within Church of Ireland teaching as situations where termination of a pregnancy would be justifiable," they said. "For some, pregnancy after sexual crime or the medical certainty of fatal foetal abnormality might also be seen as circumstances where abortion could be considered as justified."".

"They say they recognise the dilemma faced by legislators, medical, nursing and healthcare practitioners with regards to access to unrestricted abortion during the early months of pregnancy.""However, unrestricted access to abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, or indeed at any stage, is not an ethical position we can accept," they said. Both archbishops urged the strengthening of legislation to improve support services to quickly and comprehensively meet the needs of pregnant women who face difficult situations".".

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He thought a plastic doll was the exact replica of an actual 12 week old fetus, I wouldn't hold high hopes for a reasonable debate there to be fair considering other pro-lifers weren't backing him up on his statement...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can only speak for my side of the debate. Or at least my corner of it. I certainly do not speak for all pro-choice people. And a few disagree with my human-humanity distinction. They understand the distinction though, which is a different point, even if they do not agree with it.

But I was referring specifically to the "Human / A Human" distinction being made on the pro-choice side of abortion, and the error I feel you are making in your evaluation of it as "disingenuous". So what the OTHER side is saying really has nothing to do with what I was explaining for you.

That's fair enough. As you alluded is often down to context and the individual putting forward the argument and their particular reasons for it.

While you may not I believe a number of people do.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I was just referring to your use of the term dogma(tic) which implies a dedication to the material to the level one is not open to other arguments, or the changing of ones own mind.

I am just pointing out that while people often defend their position robustly (I would like to think I do at least) that does not come from a dogmatic dedication to it.

Like falsification in science I not only know what my position is, but what would negate it / change it. And all it would require is a model for rights and ethics that lends coherence to the move of assigning them to an entirely non sentient agent.

If that were done, I would likely change my position to anti-abortion instantly. Without reservation, apology, embarrassment or hesitation.

I don't doubt it and would feel the same but I'm not sure about certain demographics on either side.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is vague so I am not sure I can be sure either what you DO mean or DO NOT mean by this sentence. As I said what we even mean by "human" depends on context. And your sentence lacks that. For example if you are talking about biological taxonomy then I 100% agree.... there are things like DNA and more to being human.

But I am speaking in the context of right. Morality. Ethics. Well being. Philosophy. Personhood. Humanity. And in that context.... while I am sure there may be ore to being human than the faculty of human consciousness and sentience........ I am struggling to think of all that much of any relevance. Perhaps you can be less vague and adumbrate the basics of what you are referring to here.

Yes biologically, it is our biology that gives rise to the possibility of humanity in terms of morals, rights, etc....

Has religion got anything to do with how one would vote?

If so, then what has it got to do with the church!

They have already brainwashed enough people in this country and are now at it in other countries.

Please stop.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why should an entity with no sentience have the same rights as a woman?

Being unborn is just one stage of life. It is as important as all the other stages of life for the human being and for all the human race.
If it was not just as important as a born life, otherwise we could have 100% abortion given we are told it is a woman's choice and if all women did for the sake of the argument, we could pretend it would have no consequences, even with one fifth to one sixth of pregnancies aborted in many western countries it is having a negative impact on society as each year the number of missing people from abortion grows in that society. The irony is immigration is then needed from regions with higher birth rates to fill jobs since the ratio of dependent people in society becomes a bigger burden on society as there are less younger people to do the jobs and pay taxes as the older generations retire, one consequence of smaller families is the rise in the retirement age.
This lack of taxpayers leads to immigration being needed to fill the hole of the missing people which takes people who could maybe help their own country to another where the pay is better and standards of living higher.
People can see the effect of immigration on politics in Europe with the rise of the far right and very right wing parties.
The societal effects of abortion are clear, it is negative and that non sentient human life is vital to all of humanity. If we decided to just kill all non sentient human in any form, we would go extinct. Some treat it as if it is not vital to mankind.

RobertKK wrote: »

Being unborn is just one stage of life. It is as important as all the other stages of life for the human being and for all the human race.
If it was not just as important as a born life, otherwise we could have 100% abortion given we are told it is a woman's choice and if all women did for the sake of the argument, we could pretend it would have no consequences, even with one fifth to one sixth of pregnancies aborted in many western countries it is having a negative impact on society as each year the number of missing people from abortion grows in that society. The irony is immigration is then needed from regions with higher birth rates to fill jobs since the ratio of dependent people in society becomes a bigger burden on society as there are less younger people to do the jobs and pay taxes as the older generations retire, one consequence of smaller families is the rise in the retirement age.
This lack of taxpayers leads to immigration being needed to fill the hole of the missing people which takes people who could maybe help their own country to another where the pay is better and standards of living higher.
People can see the effect of immigration on politics in Europe with the rise of the far right and very right wing parties.
The societal effects of abortion are clear, it is negative and that non sentient human life is vital to all of humanity. If we decided to just kill all non sentient human in any form, we would go extinct. Some treat it as if it is not vital to mankind.

What are you on my good fellow?

RobertKK wrote: »

Being unborn is just one stage of life. It is as important as all the other stages of life for the human being and for all the human race.
If it was not just as important as a born life, otherwise we could have 100% abortion given we are told it is a woman's choice and if all women did for the sake of the argument, we could pretend it would have no consequences, even with one fifth to one sixth of pregnancies aborted in many western countries it is having a negative impact on society as each year the number of missing people from abortion grows in that society. The irony is immigration is then needed from regions with higher birth rates to fill jobs since the ratio of dependent people in society becomes a bigger burden on society as there are less younger people to do the jobs and pay taxes as the older generations retire, one consequence of smaller families is the rise in the retirement age.
This lack of taxpayers leads to immigration being needed to fill the hole of the missing people which takes people who could maybe help their own country to another where the pay is better and standards of living higher.
People can see the effect of immigration on politics in Europe with the rise of the far right and very right wing parties.
The societal effects of abortion are clear, it is negative and that non sentient human life is vital to all of humanity. If we decided to just kill all non sentient human in any form, we would go extinct. Some treat it as if it is not vital to mankind.

Why don't you ask one of the unborn what they think so?
Oh wait, no sentience

horseburger wrote: »

Weren't you being condescending to me when you suggested that I had only just started considering the issue?

All I said was that I had begun to put a bit more effort into hearing the arguments for and against, when late last year it became apparent that a referendum would be held this year.

Apologies then I took you up wrong, I took it to mean that you had only started looking into it in the last few months.

horseburger wrote: »

On an edition of Tonight with Vincent Browne she described the foetus as a "blob".

Isn't disrespectful to use the term blob to describe a living being?

Other posters will be delighted that I can't remember the date of the episode so I can't access it as conveniently as the other videos I posted.:)

I had a bet on Horseburger!
Where can I collect my winnings?!?

RobertKK wrote: »

Trust women is just a slogan. I trust women I know I can trust, I trust men I know I can trust, I don't trust strangers simply because it is a slogan used in a campaign.
I trust who I feel I can trust, I don't trust women who want to ignore the lives of the unborn as if they don't exist.

Thanks for answering, finally! It’s great to see how your mind works. You’ve got a lot of trust issues, seemingly!

Must be so difficult for you, knowing that random people who you don’t know require your intervention in their own decision making processes, depending on if you trust them or not. Your service to humanity is admirable!

captbarnacles wrote: »

Shut up and get on with it women. We need your unwanted pregnancies to populate our country.

What are you doing about this Robert? find a like minded woman and procreate immediately. Our survival depends on it.

There are many cases around the world where abortion rates and certain practices are a recognised problem.

reubenreuben wrote: »

What are you on my good fellow?

At the very least, I’d imagine he’s on Iona’s pay-per-post scheme earning a handy commission for every one of his responses.